The right medicine
Regarding John Percy's article, "DSP discusses major left unity initiative" (GLW #508) on the DSP's national executive's September 2 decision to propose to its membership to liquidate publicly in 2003, and put all available resources and cadre into the Socialist Alliance, is of the utmost importance at this stage in the alliance's development so that it can have the needed anchor of the DSP that will make its "potential" more palpable.
The working-class consensus by all affiliates, which John Percy referred to, shows a genuine commitment by all involved who wish to pose socialist politics as the real democratic alternative to the two major parties of Tweedledumb (Labor) and Tweedledumber (Liberal).
Further, the alliance is also the only real answer to the populist and far right, which is emerging, for instance, with One Nation (populist) and the Blackshirts (fascist).
With this proposed endeavour by the DSP, the Socialist Alliance can only grow and be an effective weapon that the proletariat can use to protect itself, and in doing so will move from a "class-in-itself" to become a "class-for itself" with the development of "class consciousness".
Craig R Hall
Fitzroy, Vic
Nukespeak
John Howard says Iraq could produce nuclear weapons if it had a source of highly enriched uranium. Big deal. That's like saying I could win the lottery if I held the winning ticket.
Australia hardly has a clean sheet. From 1965-67, a secret uranium enrichment R&D project, called the Whistle Project, was carried out at Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear plant. It is now a matter of public record that key people — such as Philip Baxter, head of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission — wanted enriched uranium for weapons.
More recently, we've been told a new nuclear reactor is required at Lucas Heights to assist in non-proliferation initiatives. What a load of garbage. Reactors are used to assist in the production of weapons (e.g., by plutonium production) not to assist in non-proliferation.
Then there's the support of successive Australian governments for the US weapons of mass destruction. And the support of successive Australian governments — on behalf of the uranium mining companies — for the expansion of the "civilian" trade in weapons-usable plutonium (both in the form of separated plutonium and mixed uranium-plutonium oxide — MOX).
The government should get its own house in order rather than mouthing idiotic tautologies about Iraq.
Jim Green
Chippendale NSW .
Beware of Scots bearing gifts?
Sue Johnson's address to the recent ISO Marxism 2002 conference is disappointing (GLW #509). Is she in favour of organisational left regroupment within the Socialist Alliance or isn't she? Instead of answering this question, she treats us to a list of failures by the alliance to reach some pre-ordained threshold she has set in her head.
Johnson laments that the SA has not attracted "enough" disaffected Labor voters and is weak on building local campaigns.
What she thinks is sufficiency in regard to electoral support she doesn't share with us. What does she want — 4% of the vote? 8.3%? 10%? Has she a clear poll figure in mind that the Socialist Alliance must attain before the ISO will come across?
Similarly, if the SA is "weak on building local campaigns" how does she expect it to overcome this inadequacy?
The way I read the fusion proposal coming from the DSP, its core rationale was to strengthen the Socialist Alliance by committing 100% to the project. Isn't this primarily an organisational question? The way I read it, SA needs a larger commitment from its stakeholders — like the DSP, and the ISO — to overcome its weaknesses and to realise its potential.
After trying to prop up these two straw people, Johnson comes to her major hesitancy to regroupment by reminding us that the DSP and the ISO pursue different tactics in the Sydney anti-war and refugee rights campaigns. What does she expect? There are tactical differences between separate organisations. Does she also mean that the ISO's further commitment to the Socialist Alliance project will be held hostage to these particular differences?
Finally, Johnson warns us against naivete. Beware, she insists, of Scots bearing gifts! OK — let's go along with this and reject any notion of a ready DIY formula. But in essence, what on earth does she think the SA is all about if it isn't about regroupment?
So will the ISO match the DSP's initiative or won't it? I and many others await on Johnson's response.
Dave Riley
Brisbane
Iraq war
The Coalition's apparent willingness to support a US attack on Iraq is disturbing. This would not constitute reasonable self-defence and would violate international law.
How can nations demand that Iraq obey international law yet breach it themselves?
The US cannot simply be trusted to initiate military action which is justified. Moreover, if one nation attacks another which it finds objectionable why expect other nations with antagonisms to hold back?
The UN should be democratically reformed; but there are still only limited circumstances — probably excluding the current Iraq situation — when wars should be fought without UN sanction. Many non-government parliamentarians understand this.
Nevertheless, merely because the UN authorises action does not mean it deserves support. Why not ask the Iraqi people who will be critically affected? When interviewed recently, two refugees from Iraq expressed opposition to war and told of the fears of their family members in Iraq (Courier-Mail, September 17).
Brent Howard
Rydalmere, NSW
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, September 25, 2002.
Visit the